Why no D750??

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by tpernal, Nov 25, 2012.

  1. I am in a quandary. I really want to upgrade to a higher resolution FX body. I have a D300 and a D700 with the Nikon grip that fits both bodies. The new D800 has Megapixels out the wazoo, but a maximum frame rate of 4fps even with the optional battery grip. I shoot birds in flight as my main subject matter, so I would benefit from the high resolution of the D800, but fear the reduction of frame rate and the resultant "missed shots". Your excellent advise usually suggests analyzing what it is you shoot and base your choices on those criteria. After doing so numerous timer, I feel like their currently is no where to go. Now even the newer Prosumer Nikons have a 28+MP sensor. I sure wish Nikon made the D800 with 28MP resolution and a higher frame rate. Any comments from hi-speed shooters would be welcome. The D4 is way out of budget even if I sell both current bodies and the grip. I also considered a used D3s. That would up the frame rate even more (and the ISO), but with no better resolution than I have now.
     
  2. The D600 is still not great but closer to your goal with 24 MP and 5 fps. What you really need and again still not out there, is the D400. I wonder if Nikon has given up on high end DX bodies? DX, 18-21 MP, at 8-10 fps and about $1800 USD would be very doable and very well received.
    Not sure what the AF of the D5200 is like but it too has 24 MP and 5 fps plus the DX factor would help for supertelephoto photography.
     
  3. With all the sales and rebates on the D7000, it's sure to be replaced soonish. The D600 is a real good bet, and the D7200 or whatever it may be might be a winner in your case. High speed is seen by Nikon as a 'Pro' feature, and so it's going to be in the D4 for now - and if they did decide to do a fully Pro DX camera, as well, but I can;t seem them bothering with such a beast based on their past performance.
     
  4. I am finding that the improved AF and resolution of the D800 easily make up for the loss of higher frame rate that I have been used to (D3).
     
  5. How about the D7000? At 16.2 MP and 6 FPS it might be the hot ticket. There is a real advantage in the DX format and moving targets. You do not need to be as disciplined in your camera hold techniques. At 16 mm on the D7000 1 degree of motion equals about 68 pixels where on the D800 it is about 95 pixels. If you are really going to use all that resolution, you are going to have to be pretty careful. Just a thought.
    Also. Comparing the D7000 to the D600 for your birds (in flight sometimes I assume) the portion of the frame covered by the same 39 autofocus points is considerably larger in the D7000 than the D600. I am not sure if that is a big deal to you. Autofocus on the D7000 is quite a bit better than the D300 IMO. The camera is really fast and almost quiet. Its dynamic range is better than the D300 of course. I am not wild about its buffer.
    The D7000 is near the end of its life cycle and my guess would be that we might see a 24 MP version(using the same sensor that is in the D3200)?
    I just wonder if you find the D300 lacking in some way. It can shoot 8 FPS and is a very nice camera. Are you finding that you need the kind of resolution you are considering? Would a better solution be lenses? Maybe wait a few months and see if the new D7000 replacement comes along.
     
  6. I had this same quandary when I moved to FX with the D800 from a D300s. I eventually bought a D700 and I use this with the battery grip as my poor-man's D4. We'll never see an FX camera that shoots at the frame rate of the D700 in a similar price and body-type because of the D3 sales that were lost with the introduction of the D700 four years ago. A "D750" would eat into D4 sales the same way. A "D400" would solve some problems, but I don't think any follow-on DX product will match the ISO performance of the the D700 or D3s, much less match the performance of the current FX products.
    There is no substitution for the higher frame rate once you develop a shooting style after you've had it. Sure, you can get some keepers at 4fps, but 8fps+ is where you want to be to get the most out of shooting action. If I'm shooting any kind of live action, my body choice is the D700+grip; for studio, portrait, architecture, and fashion work, I use the D800.
     
  7. Four frames per second isn't fast
    enough? Really?

    Rick H.
     
  8. Well I can't imagine Nikon isn't going to replace the D300s before the D7000. The 300s has the "old" battery and hasn't seen any significant upgrade since the D300 introduction in late 2007. I also can't imagine Nikon dropping the "pro" body DX camera as it's been so successful for Nikon. So we get a D400. And it pretty much has to have the 24mp sensor... there would need to be some "other" sensor in order for it not to be the 24mp sensor. Then you add the D800 focusing system. And then the "other" features of extended bracketing and so, but the issue will be the frames per second. Having a 24mp camera with more frames per second than your 16mp, $6000, D4 is a tough call to "introduce". But that is the camera Nikon needs to come out with. Do the same thing, get the frame rate up by using the battery grip with the En-EL18 battery. But the "base" camera is $1800.
    The D7000 would simply be the 24mp sensor with the locking top dial that the D600 has for $1200-$1300. Done.
     
  9. Alsio being intrested in Birding, i've been wondering wether something like a Sony NEX VG20H with a good tele would be more usefull..
    No more dependency on frame-rate, but still beinfg able to switch lenses at a still "within reasonably affordable" price ...
     
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Four frames per second isn't fast enough? Really?​
    For a lot of sports/action photographers, 4 frames/sec is a serious problem, and I find 6 fps on the D7000 not fast enough for my bird photography. There are reasons that dedicated sports cameras from Canon and Nikon, such as those EOS 1DX, D4, etc. released earlier this year for the London Olympics can capture at 9, 10 fps.
    However, you can't expect to have 28MP and 10 fps at the same time. With current technology, if you need to move and store so many pixels at a fast rate, the cost would be prohibitive. That is why the D4 is only 16MP and the 1DX is 18MP. To me, 16MP is plenty for sports, wildlife action, etc. I think 16MP is arguably enough even for huge landscape prints.
    Back to the OP, you are simply not going to get 28MP or anything close to that at 10 fps and a reasonable cost. The D600 is now just below $2000 and gives you 24MP at 5.5 fps. Hopefully that is close to the "D750" he wants.
     
  11. I think a distinction needs to be made between a hobbyist and paid pro. There is no doubt that a paid professional needs a fast frame frame rate, certainly much faster than 4. It wouldn't make sense for a pro to use anything but a D4 at this point. But for a serious hobbyist, I don't think the frame rate is as important or perhaps for many, important at all. Would I prefer a D800 that shoots 9-11 fps? Of course. But IMHO (as I mentioned previously) the exceptional IQ and AF of the D800 makes it an excellent choice for many who know how to use a camera and don't rely on the spray and pray method of photography. My lesson from using the D3 for the past few years is that for very fast action sports, even 11fps is simply not fast enough. I am getting as good or better sports/action shots with the D800 than I did with the D3. And having much more fun doing it.
    I happened to be out birding this weekend and got many great shots that would not have been possible with my D3 because of my lens setup. AF with the D800 was exceptional as expected. A fast frame rate would not have made any difference in my excursion. My 9-11 fps D3 is still gathering dust and will continue to do so...
     
  12. It's going to be a compromise - high resolution means lower continuous speeds, the only one faster than your current cameras with a higher resolution is the D4, and since that's out....I'd start by wondering a bit what the use of the extra resolution is going to be be?
    Do you need more space to crop, or are you routinely printing so large that the 12MP is insufficient? Or maybe publications are asking for higher resolutions? You say you want higher resolutions, but not exactly why - and the "why" should basically decide whether moving to a higher resolution body (at the loss of speed) is worth it, yes or no - maybe a TC could just as well be a solution here as upgrading to more megapixels?
     
  13. I don't think high fps is about "spray and pray" rather it is a solution for certain specific situations where manual timing of shots doesn't produce the results. E.g. when shooting figure skating, in a pirouette you may want a specific moment and the spinning can be fast enough that manually you may have to make quite a few attempts to get it just right. Since the speed of rotation varies, you cannot rely on predicting that if the subject is in a certain angle then you should press the shutter at that point, as the temporal offset between the "trigger angle" and the desired angle in the picture varies as a function of time. I find this type of shot quite difficult to execute due to the variables. Of course, as one progresses as an action photographer one may learn how to do this manually (by taking the rotational velocity into account) but I know that with a 10fps camera you can probably get this shot in a single burst (and then you can focus on other types of shots after this one is in the pocket) whereas manually you may have to spend some time at it before getting it right. However the D800 type "slow but high res" camera has other advantages that apply in the same situation. E.g. when the subject can move quickly towards the camera or away from it, or change its size (by extending the hands / body or packing them tightly around the body), the 36MP can help in that you can shoot with a slightly loose framing and then crop to tighten it to taste in post and the image quality can still remain excellent. I imagine the same is true in birds in flight photography. Although I enjoyed the flexibility of the D800 in framing, I was annoyed when photograping jumps and pirouettes with it (with jumps you may want a sequence of shots with all the phases of the jump; very hard to do with a D800). Most of the pros (at the figure skating event where I was at) were shooting D4s and similar cameras basically, so I guess they cared more for timing (and ergonomics) than resolution. At the current state of technology we still have to choose between one or the other (or an intermediate such as 5.5fps 24MP). Personally I would prefer the D600 sensor and speed in a D4 body, but Nikon doesn't build custom cameras for individuals as far as I know, or if they do the cost would be very high.
    Rather than focusing on which camera doesn't exist now and waiting for it, it's best to devote our time and resources into working with the tools that are available today and making the most out of them in our photography. Higher speed and higher resolution cameras will come in time. Whether we can actually create something valuable and unique with them is a completely different question - and I think it's preferable to work on one's images and vision rather than sweat about limitations in current technology.
     
  14. Don't hold your breath!
     
  15. First off, thanks to all who took the time to respond to my initial post. Shun, more than any you and Illka were the responses that support my viewpoint on frame rate for high-speed action. I will post one of my recent shots that I feel shows that a slower frame rate will render some shots as the one that got away. Thanks again for all your wonderful information.
    00b4DD-506017684.jpg
     
  16. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    But IMHO (as I mentioned previously) the exceptional IQ and AF of the D800 makes it an excellent choice for many who know how to use a camera and don't rely on the spray and pray method of photography.​
    Elliot, I wonder how many times we need to educate you that using a fast frame rate is not at all the same thing as spray and pray? Both Canon and Nikon put 9, 10, 11 fps on their pro sports/news DSLRs for a reason. People who do serious sports photography for a living need that capability.
    Missed photo opportunities cannot be compensated by pixel count. That is why the top-of-the-line sports DSLRs have a relatively modest 16, 18MP in today's standards. IMO that is way more than enough. However, one just can't expect to have 24 to 36MP and 10 fps with a deep buffer to store 30, 40, 50 frames all at the same time.
     
  17. Thanks again Shun for corroborating my viewpoint. The shot I posted is hardly the result of "spray and pray". I was being facetious when I asked why no D750 in the first place. I would have preferred to see the D800 with a higher frame rate and even 18 Megapixels. I would have gladly paid $3K for a body like that.
     
  18. Wait for a D400...and use lenses that you got for the D300 plus any FX lenses your heart and your pocket desires..
     
  19. I would have preferred to see the D800 with a higher frame rate and even 18 Megapixels. I would have gladly paid $3K for a body like that.​
    Again, Nikon won't do that because of D4 cannibalization. Nikon can certainly make a camera that does this with much less engineering expertise than what was needed for a D800, but it's an education proper market segmentation. Nikon failed to do this with the D3, and introduced the D700, and subsequently experienced reduced D3 sales until they announced a D3s (with video and a larger ISO range as product differentiators). No "D750" is all about marketing.
     
  20. Nice photo, it shows a great moment.
     
  21. Shun, I agree with you, as I clearly stated previously above "There is no doubt that a paid professional needs a fast frame frame rate," But for many others, I don't think it is necessary IF you have good hand-eye coordination and enjoy shooting the 'old fashion way'. Prior to investing in the D800, it was a major concern of mine. But since I already had a high fps body, I was not too concerned. I have only used my D3 once since I got the D800. I have successfully shot in numerous situations where a high frame rate would have been my first choice including hockey, surfing and birding, yet I do not feel I have missed shots, nor missed the high frame rate. But of course, since I was shooting for myself at these times, it would not have mattered that much if I had missed any shots. Again, there is no doubt that a paid professional needs a fast frame frame rate body.
     
  22. @Elliot... Being a "professional" or serious amateur has nothing to do with the talent or integrity of the shooter. There are plenty of "pros" out there who can't shoot their way out of a paper bag, just as there are plenty of serious amateurs whose photos are absolutely stunning. Get over the Pro-shooter bias. It has NOTHING to do with what a given photographer shoots and/or the technique used to capture images. What you shoot, and what I shoot may be altogether different. A landscape photographer would absolutely love the D800 hands down. An action photographer would probably love to have your Dust Collector if for nothing else than the frame rate.
    Sorry, but I had to say that as I detect a bit of elitist PRO bias on your part.
     
  23. Anyone needing to donate their D3 bodies to a worthy cause, namely, my further camera education ?
     
  24. The thing about the argument "I got great shots without the fast frame rate" is that you do not see the shots you did not get.
    For rodeos I use a fast frame rate. (8 FPS) I often spend considerable time deciding which one of two adjacent frames is better. One always is better. So the people who see the paper get to see better not good enough. That is what I am paid to do.
    I am surprised that nobody else considered the D7000 as a compromise. It seems not to be a very popular camera on this forum. They are going for $895 today.
     
  25. Tom, I agree with you. In fact you make my point... "plenty of "pros" out there who can't shoot their way out of a paper bag"... they rely on a fast frame rate camera to get the shot for them.

    My point is simply that I am fairly certain that I am not the only photographer out there shooting sports with a D800 and enjoying it over a fast frame camera. And some do not need a high frame rate camera to shoot fast action sports. The only frame rate I need is 1. Certainly I won't get every shot. But 11fps doesn't guarantee you will get every shot either. 11fps is too slow for many sports, like hockey, for example.

    "I detect a bit of elitist PRO bias on your part" I doubt many pros will be shooting major sports events with a D800 over a D4. I doubt there will be many D3s at major upcoming events either. I am just stating a fact.

    "is that you do not see the shots you did not get." Regardless of the camera I am using, I know when I miss an important shot. Doesn't everyone?
     
  26. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Sorry Elliot, I strongly disagree with most of your points on this thread, and there is nothing wrong with having different experiences, opinions, and requirements. However, it is rather silly to pretend as if we agreed with each other while we clearly don't.
    The D800 is a fine camera and I have one (D800E), but it is by no means the solution to everything. Just a few days ago I was shooting tennis practice and I was mainly using my D700. I only took my D800E out at the very end when the coach asked for a few portraits for his web site. For that, I prefer the D800E for its potential for large prints.
    I knew that since I was shooting sports so that I would end up with a lot of frames. I prefer the D700's faster frame rate and much smaller file sizes. 36MP on the D800E was too much and those big images files would just waste disk spaces as I replicate all of my images on several sets of hard drives.
    The thing about the argument "I got great shots without the fast frame rate" is that you do not see the shots you did not get.​
    Rick M. says it very well, you don't see the shots you didn't get, i.e. the ones you missed. Once you understand what you are missing, you'll realize that a faster frame rate is important for action photography. That is precisely why that capability is available on all modern DSLRs for sports/news/action photography.
     
  27. An entire generation of fine photographers produced splendid photographs with zero-frame-rate cameras, a trained eye and intuition substituting for (and surpassing) the need for "high frame rate." Perhaps there is an alternative to wishing against the realities of physics and $$ to get a gee-whizz frame rate. The great photographers I have studied (the Alfred Eisenstadts and Morely Baers, et al) all had one thing in common, regardless of their equipment: time spent in the field, observing their subject, practicing their craft, developing the eye for the decisive moment. This is not to slight the OP's felt need for "high frame rate"--only to suggest another way of looking at the capture technology issue. I would consider the frame rate of the D600 a luxury--But then I am chronologically closer to that great generation of frame-rate-less photographers :- ).
     
  28. Art
    ALFRED EISENSTAEDT did not shot sports or for that matter much in the way of fast moving action. And he shot in 35mm quite a bit and that would definitely have been a high frame rate camera as opposed to a Speed or Crown graphic. Once again with Morely Baers you pick someone who was not a sports or action photographer. It is very easy to photograph a barn with a LF camera.

    If you are going to site photographers from the past who used slower cameras at least pick people who shoot things that move faster then a walk. Have you looked at what Harold Eugene Edgerton was able to do in the 1940's? Or how about Max Schirner? He shot automobile racing.


    Eliot

    Man I have to disagree with you whole heartedly. As some one who shoots sports for a living and started doing it with a Nikon F all I can say about your comments on eye hand coordination is hogwash. I play in several sports (Fencing, Martial Arts as well as competitive pistol shooting) I have what might be considered very good eye hand coordination as well as reasonably fast reflexes. And I can say that you are not going to get THE SHOT shooting one frame at a time. Can you get good images that way? yes but the 1/15th of a second after you hit the shutter may be even better. And I doubt that you are that fast.
     
  29. "As some one who shoots sports for a living" You are the type of person that I commented SHOULD be shooting with a high frame rate camera. I have stated this 2-3 times. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

    When shooting for myself, I take the time to plan my shots in advance so I know what I am looking for and do my best to get the shot I want. I like the challenge. I like using my abilities. I find this allows me to get better shots than just holding down the shutter button at 9 or 11fps and hoping for the best. More often than not, I get the shot I want.

    I was out birding this past weekend shooting for a time under very challenging lighting conditions. And while others were there firing off shot after shot with their higher frame rate cameras, I was patient and got most of the shots I wanted, and was thankful for the fast and accurate AF of the D800 even at 800mm (using a 400mm focal length with a TC - AF was exceptional). And because of the high resolution of the D800, my prints look great. My D3 would not have focused sufficiently with the lens/TC combo I was using, nor would it my prints have had the quality that I was able to achieve specifically because of the D800's resolution. Ultimately, I was glad I left my D3 at home. But then again, I was out shooting for fun. Frankly, I had gotten used to having a trigger finger and am enjoying personal photography now more than ever because of the slow frame rate. Go figure! but I guess I am alone in this thinking.
     
  30. I like using my abilities. I find this allows me to get better shots than just holding down the shutter button at 9 or 11fps and hoping for the best.​
    Seriously Eliott. Is your intention just to insult us? Those of us who use high frame rate cameras when they are the right tool do not lack ability. We augment it. We know when the moment is coming and simply take extra advantage of it.
     
  31. Meh... Elliot's opinions are no more or less valid or relevant than similar debates over the value of VR, IS or any type of anti-shake. If you have shaky hands like mine, it's essential. If your hands are steady it's superfluous. The difference is that photographers who find they don't need rapid frame rates or anti-shake tend to assume that if they don't need a feature, nobody does. Video fits into this familiar debate niche too.
    The manufacturers are going to offer these features anyway, so arguing about it online won't change anything.
     
  32. Isn't this the same old adage with a twist ? ... You can have it Hi Res, Fast frame rate, or affordable ... pick two.
     
  33. If you have shaky hands like mine, it's essential. If your hands are steady it's superfluous.​
    Do not agree : even the most steady hands can be in a "shaky"environment... :)
     
  34. My intent is not to insult anyone. I HAVE and use high frame rate camera (although lately it hasn't seen any use for personal photography). I USE IT for paid events involving fast action. I PREFER to use the D800 for my personal use (NOT PAID, JUST FOR FUN) sports photography and find I don't miss the high frame. DISCLAIMER: This is simply my personal opinion and I am not implying anyone else agrees with it, should agree with it or should adopt my philosophy.
    "assume that if they don't need a feature, nobody does" I never stated or insinuated this. I simply stated my preference for non-paid photography. In fact, I clearly stated the opposite.
     
  35. IMO the frame rate question really shouldn't be the issue here. The real question is "are you prepared to spend $10K and upwards on lenses Tom?". If not, then a high megapixel count and full-frame are very much an irrelevance.
    There are almost no (affordable) telephoto lenses that can do full justice to a 36 megapixel full-frame camera like the D800. There are a few extremely expensive tele lenses that can do some justice to the 24 megapixels of the D600, and a fair few more that can survive scrutiny on a 16 megapixel D4. So why would Nikon produce a prosumer grade 28 Mp camera aimed at sports and wildlife use that's only going to show up the shortcomings of the glassware fitted to it? DX is the sensible choice of format for this genre, and Nikon already offers a good choice of DX body with reasonable frame rate and adequate pixel count.
     
  36. Increases in pixel count and sensor size dramatically improve image detail rendition and sensor size also improves tonality if you're not severely focal length limited (or aiming for deepest DOF, in which case sensor sizes are roughly on equal footing). Because sensor MTF and lens MTF both decay slowly as a function of spatial frequency, there is a broad range of lens quality levels (in practice, all lenses) that benefit significantly from being mounted on a D800(E). The lenses don't have to be expensive; among people who can afford a D800, many if not most already have lenses such as 70-200/2.8 and 300/4 that cost nowhere near $10k yet easily saturate a D800 sensor with detail, properly used. And even if a lens doesn't saturate it still benefits from it, e.g. a VR 70-300 would give much better quality on a D800 than on a D300 or D700, as it does on a D7000 vs. D300.
    Photographers make images which are typically either shown on electronic media or printed on paper. The end application is where the image quality is evaluated and that is the only thing that counts. RJ makes it sound like the image quality decreased when the image is recorded on a high resolution sensor which is of course total nonsense; the opposite is true. And it doesn't really have to be a big print either - the jump from 12 to 24MP was immediately obvious in A4 size prints when I went from D3 to D3X; texture was defined a lot more clearly. This is because of the differences in the AA filters for the most part, and of course the fact that the lens I used (like most decent lenses) was severely handicapped by the 12MP sensor. A3/A2 prints show even a greater difference. Of course, shutter speeds have to be high (1/1000s or faster) if you want high resolution images of subjects that are not totally stationary. Nowadays I make sure my shutter speed is very high before I even start thinking about stopping down the lens (in much of my photography which involves people subjects in complex, cluttered backgrounds) as I like the gradation from absolute detail to increased blurriness as we move our eye away from the main subjects.
    To an action photographer catching the moment is sometimes very difficult if the camera is not capable of high speed shooting. High resolution and high speed have both benefits and given current level of technology the photographer has to choose a compromise that fits their needs best. For me the high speed is a lower priority; however the main reason I have the D800 and not D4 is price. I suspect that is true of a lot of photographers. Still, the recipe of affordable compact slow high resolution camera + high speed high cost camera is probably going to make more people happy than the opposite (affordable compact high speed camera + extremely expensive slow high res camera) that Nikon had in the previous generation. Perhaps within 10 years or so, both high speed and high resolution (to satisfy most practical applications) can be had in the same camera.
     
  37. A bit of a rant, but still true:
    There are reasons that dedicated sports cameras from Canon and Nikon, such as those EOS 1DX, D4, etc. released earlier this year for the London Olympics can capture at 9, 10 fps.​
    Yes, the reason is called marketing. Both want to be top dog. It is not 4 vs. 6 fps that gives the upper hand, it is still timing and knowing the sport in question. When I shoot show jumping I have little use of the D7000's 6 fps. I time the shot and can get excellent results even in single shot mode. Back in the 90s I got excellent bird shots with a mere 4.5 fps camera.
    Talk to a seasoned sports/bird pro and it is not 10 fps that is the advice you will get. It is pratice getting your timing right. If all you want is frames per second, get a movie camera and print the still frame that looks best.
     
  38. Andreas
    I am a seasoned pro and I know my sports and I shoot with a camera that will do what I need and right now that is a D4.
    When I shoot show jumping you are right high frame rate is not needed. At the higher fences a single shot can be all you need. The hang time sure helps. Try shooting Dressage where you need to catch the perfect extended trot or the Canter pirouette at the right moment. Sure it can be done with out a high frame rate in fact its not done by spray and pray it is only done by timing the strides but you still need to be able to shoot quickly, I used to do it shooting film with a manual advanced camera. When I got the motor drive life got better. Hey we even used to do it without auto-focus.
    High frame rates and big buffers are much more then just marketing they are a tool to be used as needed.
    As for the movie camera 24fps is not all that fast and will still miss lots of things. Its why they developed high speed cameras that run at much higher frame rates as high as 150 fps... Again its a tool to be used as needed.
     
  39. The EOS 1DX and D4 aren't the only cameras that get 9 to 10 FPS. I'm a Nikon shooter but didn't want to pay $6,000 for a 10 FPS body. Instead, I bought a 16 MP Sony A57 with 70-400 which shoots at 10 FPS with continuous auto focus and auto exposure. It will shoot at 12 FPS in 10 MP cropped frame mode. The only downside is that the lens must be at maximum aperture. This is OK with the Sony 70-400 since it compares more than fovorably to the Nikon 80-400 (very slow focus) or Canon 100-400. I believe the A57 is the only Sony SLT that does all of the above. Yes, it's a prosumer body but Sony will probably replace it next year with something better. However, you'll only be out $600, not $6,000. Once you've shot flying birds and sports at 10 FPS, it's tough to settle for lesser FPS.
     
  40. I seem to have unleashed BlogZilla with my initial post. I do have some serious glass. 300mm 2.8 VRII nikon with a 1.4 TC. I did have the new TC-2xIII but sold it as I thought it wasn't a sharp enough combo (here come the comments). I have read articles that over 1/400 to 1/1200 shutter speed VR/IS can slow performance and actually cause more problems than it fixes. I have tried this philosophy and find it true. It would seem the best course of action for me at this time is to stay put with my current bodies and hope for the D400 folks are wishing for. Another thought is a low shutter count used D3s. I could come out even with what I could bet for my 2 bodies and the battery grip. All my lenses are FX. 24-70mm 2.8 Nikon - 70-200mm 2.8 VRI Nikon - 105mm 2.8 VR Nikon Micro and the aforementioned 300mm with TC1.4. I think I am pretty set until I can afford possibly the 500mm f4 Nikon. Again did not mean to turn this into an opinion war. But I did get a great scope of opinions from many knowledgeable posters.
    00b4g4-506275584.jpg
     
  41. Nice shot Tony.
    Sure looks like you can get the best out of what you have. And that is the mark of a true craftsman.
     
  42. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    There are reasons that dedicated sports cameras from Canon and Nikon, such as those EOS 1DX, D4, etc. released earlier this year for the London Olympics can capture at 9, 10 fps.
    Yes, the reason is called marketing. Both want to be top dog. It is not 4 vs. 6 fps that gives the upper hand, it is still timing and knowing the sport in question.​
    Nobody says knowing the sports (and wildlife behavior) and timing are not important, but having a fast frame rate is also important.
    I am talking about the very best sports photographers that get to shoot at the Olympics. Those people certainly know what they are doing. Do you really think that they would waste $6000 on a D4 with features they don't need just due to Nikon marketing?
    Brian McHattie just posted again to his thread from a month ago: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00awge
    On October 24, I wrote:
    Shun Cheung [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG], Oct 24, 2012; 08:09 a.m.
    Elliot, when you have a chance, read the following article. Hopefully you'll understand why a fast frame rate is critical to sports and action photography and won't dismiss that "spray and pray" again.
    http://www.americanphotomag.com/article/2012/07/masters-olympic-photography-rich-clarkson
    If all you do in sports and wildlife action photography is to anticipate and practice for what you expect to happen, you will end up with a lot of routine, cliche images and miss the completely unexpected moments. Those unexpected images are what I am after.​
    To me, sports and action photography (including wildlife) is about getting the exciting, unexpected behavior, not the expected routine, cliche type action that thousands of people have already captured.
     

Share This Page